Pages

Wednesday, 27 March 2013

There are many things I’d like to blog about at the moment: Donald Trump, how my work-life balance went kaput thanks to the Curse of THE, the City of Edinburgh Local Development Plan… but right now I want to talk about the state of social housing, in Scotland and the UK.In half an hour I’ll be leaving my office to head to the monthly Committee meeting of Prospect Community Housing Association. I’ve been on the committee since 2008 and we manage around 900 homes, very well, in Wester Hailes in west Edinburgh. I love being on the Committee – it’s one of the most rewarding things I do. But I head off with a heavy-heart because a long standing committee member has resigned citing the fact that they struggled to keep up with the changes buffeting the social housing sector in Scotland and therefore to provide the governance and oversight needed.So what is happening exactly? Well, we have the good old Bedroom Tax and benefit changes that are going to screw-us all over mightily from April. I note the Scottish Government is now expecting Council and RSLs to absorb the costs of tenants getting into arrears and not evict them. I’m sorry, but if that is going to result in our housing association going bust in a couple of year, it is not going to happen. Yes, we will do everything we can to support tenants and prevent arrears, but we cannot absorb costs.But the key thing in Scotland does seem to be the massive over-regulation of the sector. To give a bit of background, in 1988 we had the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Housing Corporation in Scotland. In 1989 they became Scottish Homes, the regulator and funder. In 2003 they combined with the regeneration arm of the then Scottish Executive to become Communities Scotland (heady days…). In 2007 as part of their bonfire of the QUANGOs the Scottish Government axed Communities Scotland and brought regulation in house. It then realised you couldn’t have a regulator as part of the Government, so it created a new QUANGO (or possibly an NDPB) the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), which is now getting stuck into its job with a zealousness that is quite staggering. This is going hand-in-hand with the new performance and management regime the “Scottish Housing Charter” with enormous reporting requirements for housing associations and a whole new jargon of “ARCs” and “outcomes” to learn.

We also have:

Endless consultation documents from the Scottish Government and the SHR on: Right-To-Buy, the Charter, the regulatory standards in the Charter, Stage 3 Adaptations, about four consultations on funding in five years, Wider Role, to name but a few;

New “incidents” we have to report to the SHR, with guidance so unclear it could include anything from opening and envelope to a house collapsing;

A new complaints regime from the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman that’s required massive amounts of staff time and investment to create new systems;

And we have basically no funding for new development (unless you want to be indebted up to your eyeballs and charge non-affordable rents).

As you can probably tell from the tone of this blog post all this tires me out and makes me angry as well. And the real kick in the teeth is when the SHR and bodies like the CIH then have the cheek to turn around to us as voluntary committee members and question our commitment, expertise and abilities. They challenge us that we don’t provide sufficient strategic oversight – is it any wonder when we’re having to fire-fight so many issues just to stand still? Prospect’s Committee is a truly amazing body of people – I think the regulator would struggle to find fault with us. But I’m realistic and I know some housing associations do not have the same skills or capacity. But really, the regime is awful. And what makes me really angry is this – as a housing association we moved to component accounting because the regulator made us. This resulted in a material change to our accounting position. This meant the banks are now pulling us up on our loan covenants even though they knew about this, which may mean higher rent increases from our tenants who are being screwed over by the posh t**ts in Westminster. These are the same banks that went spectacularly bust, bringing down the global economy with them because of poor strategic governance and oversight. And it’s the model of big business that the regulator seems to want us to follow.

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

If you're a practicing planner, or a planning academic, reading this blog you've probably realised I have quite a broad definition of what "planning" is or might be. For me it's an amalgam of US-style policy-planning and European spatial planning. So I feel that I am a planner and wanted to be able to call myself a planner. I have an RTPI accredited degree so I applied to become a chartered member through the Assessment of Professional Competence. I got the results back last Friday and was unsuccessful on all criteria and all three parts of the APC. I'm very angry about this and, based on a lot of feedback I'm appealing. I'll do a longer blog post once that process has been gone through (possibly like Kean Birch has done with his rejected papers here) so other academics who have similarly had the temerity to think they're good enough to be called "planners" have an idea of what they might do (given the RTPI gave me no help or advice whatsoever despite me asking). In the mean time, I want to thank Kelvin MacDonald, Alister Scott, Caroline Brown, Rob Daley, Alasdair Rae, Alex Nurse, Andreas SchulzeBäing, Angela Hull and John McCarthy for all their help and kind words and practical support. Apologies in advance if I've missed anyone out.

Friday, 1 March 2013

I'm taking part in the ESRC Housing and the Big Society seminar series, kicking off in Sheffield next week. I've done a blogpost previewing my paper, which I'm also posting here.

This spring has seen town planning hit our TV screens in the
fly-on-the-wall documentary The Planners. And very popular it is proving
too, with 1.58 million people tuning in and the Guardian
describing it as “interesting”. Every episode begins with a portentous
voiceover describing how “the government” want to see a lot more
development on greenfield sites. And on every episode there is at least
one housing development where the local community get very irate and
organise a campaign to try and halt it, with varying amounts of success.

The UK Government’s planning reforms – part of their Big Society
agenda implemented through the Localism Act – were meant to unleash
enterprise within communities and replace “top-down” housing targets
with incentives for local communities with housing need to deliver
higher levels of development. Yet, as Shelter highlight,
new home completions are continuing to fall, reaching a record low and
the government is now back-tracking on early commitments to empowerment.

In this blog post we describe why this outcome should have been
expected because of inherent inequalities in the way citizens interact
with public services – in this case the planning system.

The middle classes and the delivery of housing

In our research we carried out the first ever review of literature on middle-class community activism (Matthews and Hastings, 2013).
This review of 69 studies across public services in the UK, USA and
Scandinavian nations, found strong evidence that the middle-classes, or
more socio-economically affluent groups, are favoured in the provision
of public services. The review used a realist synthesis methodology
ordinarily applied to policy analysis and evaluation. This aims to
produce a mid-range causal theory that explains what works, in what
contexts and how (for more detail on this methodology see Pawson et al. 2005).

Two of these causal theories that are particularly pertinent to planning for housing are:

The middle classes and interest groupsThe middle classes are more likely to join groups, form groups, and
these groups are more important in policy-making (e.g. School Governing
Boards)The middle classes as individual consumers/activists with public servicesThe middle classes are more likely to complain about public services.
When they do so they are more likely to get a positive response and
produce a virtuous circle.

We argue that these causal theories largely predict the sort of NIMBY
(not in my back yard) behaviour that is portrayed as a key barrier to
housing delivery in the UK planning system. The UK coalition
government’s planning reforms contained in the Localism Act specifically
sought to break the mechanism by incentivising NIMBYs who would have
ordinarily resisted housing developments with financial benefits. If
communities accepted new housing then they would receive greater
investment through a reformed Community Infrastructure Levy (Roof Tax on
new housing developments) and a New Homes Bonus where the increased tax
base would be matched by an extra contribution from central government
for five years. Unpacking the logic of this from the open source
planning documents the outcome of low housing delivery is seen as a
product of a mechanism of community resistance, but the logic lying
behind this is that the new housing puts a strain on local services that
is unwelcome. If this can be turned into an economic incentive,
delivering benefits to local communities, then the outcome would be more
housing – a causal mechanism of basic economic incentives. However,
the evidence from the review of middle class service provision suggests
they have misunderstood the way that resistance to new develop comes
about and why, and ultimately predicts that the Localism Act is unlikely
to be successful in overcoming NIMBY pressures against new housing.

Public engagement in the planning system has been a concern since the
late 1960s and the publication of the Skeffington report (Hague, 1971).
Importantly, under land-use planning legislation in the England the
lowest level of local government – parish councils – are a statutory
consultee that local planning authorities must engage with when drafting
a development plan or deciding on a planning application. Parish
councils, particularly in rural villages, are dominated by middle class,
older men, often with professional backgrounds. From the earliest
reforms to increase public participation in land-use planning that this
may empower those most able and vocal, such as middle class civic
amenity groups, has been recognised.

Linking this to the second causal theory above, the highly technical
system land-use planning also supports the accumulation and use of
cultural capital. To engage successfully with the planning system
requires knowledge of technical planning language, complex technical
terms such as what constitutes a “material consideration”, and knowledge
of the system itself and when it is most effective to engage. The
studies of rural affordable housing provision demonstrate that middle
class parish council members are much more likely to have this knowledge
and be able to apply it. The technical nature of planning processes
enables the accumulation of this cultural capital as well. The evidence
around this NIMBYist attitude was made even stronger by findings that
many developers of controversial developments – such as wind energy –
presumed that the public were vocal, lobbying and would resist all
development.

In our review the evidence that the pre-2010 planning system in
England favoured the middle classes was strong. To turn now and look at
how planning is being reformed under the localism reforms, our causal
theories suggest that the middle classes will continue to be favoured.
As part of the Localism Act neighbourhood planning proposals have
empowered local groups to produce their own plan which will be accepted
as the key planning document for a locality so long as it is in line
with national planning guidance, the local plan produced by the local
planning authority and agreed at a local referendum. Although the UK
Government has attempted to incentivise new development, the weight of
evidence from our review of the planning system suggests that the
neighbourhood planning proposals are a policy mechanism that is
particularly susceptible to causal theories of middle class activism.The reforms introduced by the Localism Act could have reversed the
previous inequality in the land use planning system if they placed less
affluent communities on an equal footing and provided them with the
means to resist bad neighbour developments such as incinerators and
heavy industry and create the types of development they wanted to see.
The proposals set out in Open Source Planning that are being
implemented as set out in the Localism Act suggest this will not happen.
Most of the initial 17 neighbourhood planning pilots were in rural
villages, and of those in urban centres arguably only Balsall Heath in
Birmingham, Bermondsey in London, and North Shields Fish Quay in North
Tyneside could be described as diverse or not affluent.The implementation of the reforms has actually produced barriers that
are likely to support, rather than challenge, the existing bias towards
the middle class in the planning system. For example, although any
group can come forward to develop a neighbourhood plan, they need to
secure a majority vote in a referendum for any plan. This has raised
fears that the proposals will allow developers to lead a neighbourhood
planning process and impose development on less affluent communities as
the latter would not have the resources, either in terms of time and
money or cultural capital and knowledge of the planning system to come
forward with their own proposals. The plans must also be in line with
local, national and European policy and statute, for example requiring a
strategic environmental assessment. Local authorities are meant to
support local communities in developing the plans, however as they lose
staff it is likely this will not be forthcoming. The neighbourhood
planning proposals therefore benefit those communities that can organise
most successfully and those that can draw on their own expertise and
cultural capital.

The public debates about the planning reforms, and particularly
surrounding the new single National Planning Policy Framework and its
presumption in favour of sustainable development, led many to see
neighbourhood planning as a NIMBYs charter. Campaign groups such as the
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England arguing for protection of
the green belt around major conurbations, were pitted against a
coalition of business and housing and homelessness organisations
fighting for strategic land release for development. These debates
reflect on a national scale the same causal theories that our review
identified as operating at a local level.

Our evidence suggests that the previous “top-down” housing targets of
regional spatial strategies in England disrupted, momentarily, two of
the key ways in which middle class, affluent groups could manage the
planning system to their benefit. Without this, the fact that the
reformed planning system has not unleashed a wave of development does
not come as that great a surprise. The economic incentives of the new
homes bonus are insufficient to overcome these causal mechanisms by
which middle class residents can resist development.

About Me

I'm a Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling.
I blog about urban policy, cycling and other ephemera in a semi-professional manner. All posts represent personal opinions.